The Death Penalty

Gold Member

Here&#39;s another objectivist argument this time dealing with the death penalty. I will be posting more, but I don&#39;t want to flood the board, i will keep it to one a week or so.
Try to keep all comments relevant to the points made in the link e.g. the justification for it; the fact that it is not to be used as a deterrant but as a service to justice.

The death penalty was finished with over here over 40 years ago. And even then it was in exeptional circumstances.

One of the last people to be hanged over here was one of the most infamous cases in British legal history. The famous "Let him have it" case.

In the &#39;50s two young men were cornered by police after breaking into a property. One of the men had a gun. His friend was quoted as yelling out "Let him have it". The man with the gun shot the policeman dead.

In court the two arguments were a simple case of language; did he mean "Let him have it" as in &#39;shoot him&#39;, or did he mean &#39;let him have the gun&#39;?

To cut a long story short, one of the young men was hanged. The other was under 18.

Only recently has this matter been cleared up. The High Court ruled that the man was innocent.

Gold Member

Originally posted by HappyHammer1977@Nov 1 2005, 07:44 AMThe death penalty was finished with over here over 40 years ago. And even then it was in exeptional circumstances.

One of the last people to be hanged over here was one of the most infamous cases in British legal history. The famous "Let him have it" case.

In the &#39;50s two young men were cornered by police after breaking into a property. One of the men had a gun. His friend was quoted as yelling out "Let him have it". The man with the gun shot the policeman dead.

In court the two arguments were a simple case of language; did he mean "Let him have it" as in &#39;shoot him&#39;, or did he mean &#39;let him have the gun&#39;?

To cut a long story short, one of the young men was hanged. The other was under 18.

Only recently has this matter been cleared up. The High Court ruled that the man was innocent.

[post=357333]Quoted post[/post]​

Click to expand...

Well, then, that means that the cop died accidentally of lead poisoning?

I&#39;m a supporter of the death penalty as punishment for the taking of innocent blood but it&#39;s not a stretch to say that soon it will be declared unconstitutional in the U.S.
I will be able to accept that only if it is replaced with life without the possibility of parole.

Gold Member

a high court ruling in his favor must be immensely satisfying to that guy 50 YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH :eyes: what a waste of time.

I&#39;m not personally "in favor" of the criminal justice system in its present form period, BUT i gotta admit that capital punishment makes a lot more sense than keeping someone in a cell for the rest of their life, for both the condemned and the justice system. I know i&#39;d much rather have a quick clean death than 50-odd years rotting in a box, thanks. I&#39;d suggest the following amendments to the process, though:

1. the death sentence must be confirmed by the head of state, and the head of state must carry out the execution HIM/HERSELF.
2. no more electric chairs, gas chambers, lethal injections or none of that wacky shit. those methods are messy, unreliable and needlessly cruel. if you&#39;re gonna kill someone, do it cleanly with a bullet or a guillotine device. don&#39;t dick around with toxic chemicals and electric shocks cos it makes you feel clever.
3. no more death row. once the sentence is passed, get the hell on with it.

Gold Member

Originally posted by HappyHammer1977@Nov 1 2005, 03:03 PMIt might have meant something to his family&#33;

[post=357363]Quoted post[/post]​

Click to expand...

how so? is it gonna bring him back from the dead? if his family believed he was innocent all along, they&#39;re hardly gonna be thrilled to hear platitudes out of the same system that executed him, are they?

how so? is it gonna bring him back from the dead? if his family believed he was innocent all along, they&#39;re hardly gonna be thrilled to hear platitudes out of the same system that executed him, are they?

[post=357365]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

Maybe you should look into the case. Very interesting.
There was even a film about it made about ten years ago.

Gold Member

Dr. Rock, I agree that the methods we use for the death penalty should be done away with, but not for the same reasons. So what if killing a murderer is messy, it should be, it should hurt. I say bring back crucifixion.

Gold Member

the problem with that is that it encourages the state to take on the role of retributor, which it has proven over and over throughout recorded history that it cannot be trusted with. retribution should be up to individuals, not a component of state-enforced law. when you ask someone else to make your enemies suffer for you, you&#39;re just granting them power and authority to which they&#39;re not entitled. if you think someone deserves to suffer, take the responsibility and hurt them yourself.

Gold Member

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Nov 1 2005, 08:11 PMthe problem with that is that it encourages the state to take on the role of retributor, which it has proven over and over throughout recorded history that it cannot be trusted with. retribution should be up to individuals, not a component of state-enforced law. when you ask someone else to make your enemies suffer for you, you&#39;re just granting them power and authority to which they&#39;re not entitled. if you think someone deserves to suffer, take the responsibility and hurt them yourself.

[post=357405]Quoted post[/post]​

Click to expand...

The result then would be vigilantism, and without an unbiased objective third party deciding criminal cases, the validity of punishment would be suspect. There would then become gang rule, who mete out punishment on their own whims and impulses. Government should have a monopoly on physical force, but watched closely, that&#39;s why the legal process should be very long and drawn out so as to make sure of the guilt of the accused.

also i wasn&#39;t toally serious about crucifixion, if thats what you mean, i don&#39;;t think the government should be the arbiter of torture, only penalty of death.

Gold Member

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Nov 1 2005, 09:06 PMThe result then would be vigilantism, and without an unbiased objective third party deciding criminal cases, the validity of punishment would be suspect.

Click to expand...

:shrug: I never claimed there was a perfect solution; personally I think at least 90% of criminal law as we currently understand it is pointless to begin with. speaking for myself, I&#39;d feel happier with a limitless number of uncontrolled vigilante groups meting out their own local justice, than with a single monolithic state authority doing it everywhere.

"I am no legal expert; but, from a layman&#39;s point of view, I would say to prevent the killing of non-murderers we must make sure that we have absolute proof of the murderer&#39;s guilt through a lengthy judicial process. I recommend there at least be a waiting period of *ten years*, or greater, from the time of death sentence until the execution. In regards to the death penalty, a speedy trial is precisely what we do not need."

The problem with the death penalty is in the above logic. I learn about 10ish years ago in a criminal justice course that I took in college that it actually costs more to execute someone than to give them life in prison. I think (if I remember correctly) that it had to do something with all of the appeals that continue while the prisoner is waiting.

If one wants to simply cut back on the cost involved in the judicial system, I think the murderers that are 100%, no-doubt guilty should get the fast track to the electric chair (or whatever may be used). Why bother wasting tax payers money just to bide more time for the killer?

Personally, I AM for the death penalty as well. It&#39;s sort of a "eye for and eye" thing with me. Perhaps it&#39;s not moral....sorry.

Also - as far as drug dealers getting executed: I kind of like the idea. I&#39;d never thought of it before, but I disagree with the logic on the site. My thoughts are more on the kids that get hooked at a young age and eventually die after a miserable life. Perhaps the drug dealer isn&#39;t directly responsible for killing that kid, but he is indirectly. Don&#39;t we pass out the death sentence for people that hire someone else to kill a person? Why would it be different other than instead of a middle-MAN, it&#39;s a drug?

Gold Member

Originally posted by TexAssgirl@Nov 2 2005, 02:12 AM"I am no legal expert; but, from a layman&#39;s point of view, I would say to prevent the killing of non-murderers we must make sure that we have absolute proof of the murderer&#39;s guilt through a lengthy judicial process. I recommend there at least be a waiting period of *ten years*, or greater, from the time of death sentence until the execution. In regards to the death penalty, a speedy trial is precisely what we do not need."

The problem with the death penalty is in the above logic. I learn about 10ish years ago in a criminal justice course that I took in college that it actually costs more to execute someone than to give them life in prison. I think (if I remember correctly) that it had to do something with all of the appeals that continue while the prisoner is waiting.

If one wants to simply cut back on the cost involved in the judicial system, I think the murderers that are 100%, no-doubt guilty should get the fast track to the electric chair (or whatever may be used). Why bother wasting tax payers money just to bide more time for the killer?

Personally, I AM for the death penalty as well. It&#39;s sort of a "eye for and eye" thing with me. Perhaps it&#39;s not moral....sorry.

Also - as far as drug dealers getting executed: I kind of like the idea. I&#39;d never thought of it before, but I disagree with the logic on the site. My thoughts are more on the kids that get hooked at a young age and eventually die after a miserable life. Perhaps the drug dealer isn&#39;t directly responsible for killing that kid, but he is indirectly. Don&#39;t we pass out the death sentence for people that hire someone else to kill a person? Why would it be different other than instead of a middle-MAN, it&#39;s a drug?

[post=357495]Quoted post[/post]​

Click to expand...

The reason the writer recommended ten years is exactly for what you cited: in order to make 100 percent sure that the accused is guilty. Capital punishment is about justice, not about economics, if it cost more to be moral then so be it. How would you feel if you knew that an innocent man was murdered because you wanted to save a few bucks?

The difference between drugs and murder is that the user has a choice of whether or not to use the drug, even if they are young and stupid. I was young once and stupid but I never did anything worse than pot and now I don&#39;t do any drugs except nicotine which I know to be dangerous, but it is my choice and not the fault of phillip morris. If no one wanted to do drugs there wouldn&#39;t be any drug dealers, drug dealers meet a demand with a supply, the supply doesn&#39;t create the demand.

Gold Member

I&#39;m all for the death penalty in theory, but I don&#39;t trust our government in the least to handle it. We&#39;ve had too many men on death row who have been released later due to new evidence that was overlooked at the time. Not surprisingly, most of these men have been black. It&#39;s just too easy here to say "some black guy did it" and the police will find one to fit the mold.

If there was a way to legitimately prove guilt in a murder, rape, or child molestation case, yes, I&#39;d be all for the death penalty, as punishment. Think about this, molesters have almost NO recovery rate. To let them out is to veritably insure that another child or many children will fall victim. I&#39;d say better one sick fuck die than an army of people have to grown up seriously screwed for life. I say on the thrid conviction, fry them immediately after the trial.

Gold Member

madam, I&#39;d say that the occurance of people on death row being exonerated is evidence that the safety systems work. I don&#39;t think juries though are quick to sentence a black man to death because they are black, the poverty rates amongst blacks is higher, the percentage of blacks in prison is higher than whites so it styands to reasojn that more blacks would be on death row. Racial profiling is a problem, but it is probably unrelated to the issue of the death penalty.

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Nov 2 2005, 01:10 AMThe reason the writer recommended ten years is exactly for what you cited: in order to make 100 percent sure that the accused is guilty. Capital punishment is about justice, not about economics, if it cost more to be moral then so be it. How would you feel if you knew that an innocent man was murdered because you wanted to save a few bucks?

The difference between drugs and murder is that the user has a choice of whether or not to use the drug, even if they are young and stupid. I was young once and stupid but I never did anything worse than pot and now I don&#39;t do any drugs except nicotine which I know to be dangerous, but it is my choice and not the fault of phillip morris. If no one wanted to do drugs there wouldn&#39;t be any drug dealers, drug dealers meet a demand with a supply, the supply doesn&#39;t create the demand.

[post=357536]Quoted post[/post]​

Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have made myself more clear. I wasn&#39;t talking about giving all convicted murderers a fast-track to be executed, just the ones that we are 100% sure that they did it. For example: a guy walks into Burger King and shoots and kills multiple people. There&#39;s no denying that he is guilty. Why should our tax &#036; have to be wasted on appeals so that he can avoid execution just for a little bit longer?

Here&#39;s some stats - granted that the largest percentage of drug users fall in the 18-24 yr range, but there&#39;s also a huge percentage in the 16-17 and then 14-15 age ranges. Even the 12-13 have a percentage that&#39;s not to be scoffed at.

Perhaps the death penalty would be too harsh for them, they certainly need harsher penalties than what they endure. Although if I had a 12 year old that died of a drug overdose from some drugs that he bought off of someone else at school, I&#39;d probably say "Fry the bastard&#33;"

I take it we are talking about 100% guilty and remorsless murderers here?
In which case I can&#39;t see any point in keeping people alive in prison for the rest of their lives. - Lifers also tend (not in all cases) to get a cushier time in prison; own clothes, comfier cells etc -

Prison should be about rehabilitating offenders who will eventually get out. If they are not going to get out, what&#39;s the point leaving them in there alive?

Gold Member

Originally posted by TexAssgirl@Nov 2 2005, 03:55 PMFor example: a guy walks into Burger King and shoots and kills multiple people. There&#39;s no denying that he is guilty. Why should our tax &#036; have to be wasted on appeals so that he can avoid execution just for a little bit longer?

[post=357662]Quoted post[/post]​

Click to expand...

well, let&#39;s see. were any of the victims burger king employees? because you could make a case for them being accomplices to mass poisoning, for starters.

My opinion is that it is not the right of man to decide who lives and who dies. I find the death penalty to be morally reprehensible. It has not been proven to deter crime, and because of the appeals process, it is not any more cost effective to put a man to death than it is to keep him behind bars for the rest of his life.